You are on page 1of 31

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIONISIO CALONGE G.R. No. 182793, July 5, 2 1 P!""#$#%& F!$'() Rosita A.

Calonge was appellants legitimate wife, with whom he had three children. On December 1, 2001 at around !00 ocloc" in the morning, the #illa$erde %olice &tation recei$ed a radio call from the barangay captain of Cabuluan that a massacre too" place in their localit'. Rositas bloodied bod' was found l'ing on the ground about fifteen (1)* meters awa' from their house. +er right hand was loosel' clasping a "nife. ,'ing on his bac" near the stairs was appellant who was also wounded but still conscious. -eside him were a bolo and a flashlight, both stained with blood. .hile the windows of the house were loc"ed with a piece of tie wire, the door was alread' opened. /nside the two 0bedrooms1 of the house separated onl' b' a curtain, the' found the lifeless bodies of the two 'oung girls, 2imberl' and Don' Rose. 3he other child, 4elod', was also bloodied but ali$e and conscious. 3he' brought 4elod' to the #eterans Regional +ospital where she was treated and confined for se$enteen da's. 4elod's grandparents said the' "new it was appellant because the' had heard Rosita shouting that appellant will "ill them. On the other hand, when appellant was as"ed what happened and who attac"ed him, he answered he does not "now. Appellant was charged with parricide and frustrated parricide.

/ssue! /s the accused guilt' of the crime charged5

Ruling! 67&. %arricide is committed when! (1* a person is "illed8 (2* the deceased is "illed b' the accused8 (9* the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused. 3he "e' element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the $ictim. All the elements of the crime were clearl' and sufficientl' pro$ed b' the prosecution. 7$en granting arguendo that 4elod' did not see the actual stabbing of her mother and two (2* sisters, the attendant circumstances point to no one else but the appellant as the perpetrator. Direct e$idence of the actual "illing is not indispensable for con$icting an accused when circumstantial e$idence can sufficientl' establish his guilt. 3he oft:repeated rule has been that circumstantial e$idence is ade;uate for con$iction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are deri$ed ha$e been pro$en and the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a con$iction be'ond reasonable doubt. .hile no general rule can be laid down as to the ;uantit' of circumstantial e$idence which will suffice in a gi$en case, all the circumstances pro$ed must be consistent with each other, consistent with the h'pothesis that the accused is guilt', and at the same time inconsistent with the h'pothesis that he is innocent, and with e$er' other rational h'pothesis e<cept that of guilt. 3he circumstances pro$ed should constitute an unbro"en chain which leads to onl' one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the e<clusion of all others, is the guilt' person. /n the "illing of $ictims in this case, the trial court was correct in appreciating the aggra$ating circumstance of treacher'. 3here is treacher' when the attac" is so sudden and une<pected that the $ictim had no opportunit' either to a$ert the attac" or to defend himself. /ndeed, nothing can be more sudden and une<pected than when a father stabs to death his two 'oung daughters while the' were sound asleep and totall' defenseless. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS L*IS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. 18+172, ,!y 8, 2 P!""#$#%& =acts!

On appeal is the 21 >anuar' 200? Decision of the Court of affirming the con$iction of appellant ,uis Antonio @architorena of the crime of parricide b' the Regional 3rial Court (R3C* of AueBon Cit'. 3he accusator' portion of the information reads! 3hat on or about the1 th da' of CAugust 2000D, in AueBon Cit', %hilippines, the abo$e:named accused, being then the legitimate husband of =,ORD7,/EA 3A-,A @ARC+/3OR7FA, with intent to "ill, did then and there, Cwillfull'D, unlawfull' and feloniousl' attac", assault and emplo' personal $iolence upon the person of said =,ORD7,/EA 3A-,CAD @ARC+/3OR7FA, his wife, b' then and there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on the head, thereb' inflicting upon her serious and mortal wound, which was the direct and immediate cause of her untimel' death, to the damage and preGudice of the heirs of said =,ORD7,/EA 3A-,A @ARC+/3OR7FA. /ssue! /s accused guilt' of parricide5 Ruling! 67&.3he elements of the crime of parricide are! (1* a person is "illed8 (2* the deceased is "illed b' the accused8 and (9* the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of the accused or an' of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse. All the abo$e elements were sufficientl' pro$en b' the prosecution. /t was stipulated during the pre:trial that appellant and the $ictim are married on 2H August 1III. 3hat the appellant "illed the $ictim was pro$en specificall' b' circumstantial e$idence. As aptl' stated b' the trial court! /n the instant case, the totalit' of the circumstances warrant a finding that accused is guilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 3he fact that accused and the deceased were the onl' persons in the bedroom when the shooting incident occurred is undisputed. &econdl', there was an argument between the spouses, as narrated b' the accused to the police in$estigator and during trial. 3hirdl', accused, gi$ing no logical e<cuse, got a gun. /n this, the Court finds criminal purpose. Also, there is a finding b' this Court of improbabilit' of the deceased shooting herself.

.hile admittedl' there is no direct e$idence presented b' the prosecution on the "illing of the deceased b' the accused, the established circumstances aforestated, howe$er, constituted an unbro"en chain, consistent with each other and with the h'pothesis that the accused is guilt', to the e<clusion of all other Ch'pothesisD that he is not. And when circumstantial e$idence constitutes an unbro"en chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other, it cannot be o$ercome b' inaccurate and doubtful e$idence submitted b' the accused.

P&o-l& .(. Gu'#&""&/ G.R. No. 1880 2, F&1"u!"y +, 2 1 ,u"%&", S&l23%&2&4(&

F!$'() On August 1), 2009, fi$e ()* separate /nformations for murder, frustrated murder and three (9* counts of attempted murder were filed against appellant. .hen arraigned, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilt' to the charges. 3rial on the merits then ensued. Fot finding credence in appellantJs claim of self:defense, the R3C con$icted him of murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder on three (9* counts. Appellant assails the trial court and the CA for gi$ing credence to the prosecutions e$idence. +e admits ha$ing "illed Regis and wounding Dalit, but insists that he did so in self:defense.

I((u&) Did the accused act in self:defense5

Rul#45) Fo. &elf:defense is an affirmati$e allegation and offers e<culpation from liabilit' for crimes onl' if satisfactoril' pro$ed. /t re;uires (a* unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim8 (b* reasonable necessit' of the means emplo'ed b' the accused to repel it8 and (c* lac" of sufficient pro$ocation on his part. /n People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Mara, we e<plained! One who admits "illing or fatall' inGuring another in the name of self:defense bears the burden of pro$ing! (1* unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim8 (2* reasonable necessit' of the means emplo'ed to pre$ent or repel it8 and (9* lac" of sufficient pro$ocation on the part of the person claiming self:defense. -' in$o"ing self:defense, the burden is placed on the accused to pro$e its elements clearl' and con$incingl'. .hile all three elements must concur, self:defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim. /f no unlawful aggression is pro$ed, no self:defense ma' be successfull' pleaded. /n this case, appellant utterl' failed to discharge the burden of pro$ing unlawful aggression. +is $ersion of the e$ents was uncorroborated, and his testimon' was found to be less credible b' the trial court. On

the other hand, the sur$i$ing $ictims were unanimous that appellant suddenl' fired at them, without an' pro$ocation on their part. 3he credibilit' of the prosecution witnesses had been weighed b' the trial court, and it found their testimonies to be more con$incing. As a rule, the appellate court gi$es full weight and respect to the determination b' the trial court of the credibilit' of witnesses, since the trial Gudge has the best opportunit' to obser$e their demeanor. .hile this rule admits of e<ceptions, none of such e<ceptions obtains in this case. /n Razon v. People, we held! &elf:defense cannot be Gustifiabl' appreciated when uncorroborated b' independent and competent e$idence or when it is e<tremel' doubtful b' itself. /ndeed, in in$o"ing self:defense, the burden of e$idence is shifted and the accused claiming self:defense must rel' on the strength of his own e$idence and not on the wea"ness of the prosecution. 3he trial court and the CA cannot, therefore, be faulted for reGecting appellants plea of self:defense. 3his Court also agrees with the trial court in appreciating treacher' as a ;ualif'ing circumstance. 3he essence of treacher' is the sudden and une<pected attac" b' the aggressor on unsuspecting $ictims, depri$ing the latter of an' real chance to defend themsel$es, thereb' ensuring its commission without ris" to the aggressor, and without the slightest pro$ocation on the part of the $ictims. 3he pieces of e$idence gleaned b' the trial court, the facts, are enough to show that treacher' was emplo'ed b' appellant. 3he attac" was sudden, as testified to b' the witnesses, and une<pected. %ro$ocation on the part of the $ictims was not pro$en, and appellants testimon' that the $ictims were about to attac" him cannot be gi$en credence. 3he $ictims had no in"ling that an attac" was forthcoming and had no opportunit' to mount a defense. 3hus, treacher' was correctl' appreciated as a circumstance to ;ualif' the crime to murder. Knder Article 2H? of the Re$ised %enal Code (R%C*, as amended, the penalt' imposed for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. 3here being no aggra$ating or mitigating circumstance, the penalt' imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 229 of the R%C. 3he prison term imposed b' the trial court in Criminal Case Fo. 09:9 9I is correct. .e also affirm the CA ruling that appellant is guilt' of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal Case Fo. 09:9 H0 for the inGur' sustained b' Dalit. Fo con$incing proof was offered to show that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would ha$e caused his death had medical help not been pro$ided. /t is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the $ictim are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is onl' attempted murder, as the accused had not performed all the acts of e<ecution that would ha$e brought about the $ictimJs death.

P&o-l& .(. D&l! C"u/ G.R. No. 188353, F&1"u!"y 10, 2 1

,u"%&" 6u!l#2#&% 1y T"&!$7&"y F!$'() /n an /nformation filed on August 11, 2009, accused:appellant ,eoBar Dela CruB ' -alobal was indicted for the crime of murder of #incent %imentel under Article 2H? of the Re$ised %enal Code. Kpon arraignment, he pleaded not guilt' to the charge. On &eptember ), 200 , the R3C rendered its Decision, finding ,eoBar guilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of murder attended b' treacher' and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On =ebruar' 2L, 200?, the CA rendered the appealed decision, affirming the findings of the R3C and the con$iction of ,eoBar but modif'ing the award of damages. Accused raises the same assignment of errors as in his -rief, to wit! first, that the courts a quo erred in appreciating the ;ualif'ing aggra$ating circumstance of treacher'8 and second, that the courts a quo gra$el' erred in con$icting him of murder instead of homicide.

I((u&) .as there treacher'5

Rul#45) 6es. 3he fact that ,eoBar and #incent did not ;uarrel prior to the "illing is indicati$e of the treacher' emplo'ed b' ,eoBar. After #incent paid ,eoBar some mone', he left and went inside the alle'. .hen #incent came bac" to 4oc"ingbird &t. from the alle', ,eoBar deliberatel' emplo'ed means with treacher' affording #incent no opportunit' to defend himself, i.e., ,eoBar draped his arm around #incent and slashMslit his nec" using a 2H:inch bladed samurai. 3he fatal nec" wound caused #incents death, described in his death certificate as Nhemorrhagic shoc" secondar' to an incised wound of the nec".N All told, the $ictim was unaware of the imminent attempt on his life, and was not in a position to defend himself. Clearl', treacher' was present in this "illing. 3here is treacher' when the offender commits an' of the crimes against persons, emplo'ing means, methods, or forms in the e<ecution, which tend directl' and speciall' to insure its e<ecution, without ris" to the offender arising from the defense which the offended part' might ma"e. 3he essence of treacher' is that the attac" comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and une<pected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting $ictim no chance to resist or escape. =or treacher' to be considered, two elements must concur! (1* the emplo'ment of means of e<ecution that gi$es the persons attac"ed no opportunit' to defend themsel$es or retaliate8 and (2* the means of e<ecution were deliberatel' or consciousl' adopted. P&o-l& .(. T!1!"4&"o G.R. No. 108109, F&1"u!"y 2+, 2 1

S&l23%&2&4(&, Volu4'!"y Su""&4%&"

F!$'() 3his is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA:@.R. CR.:+.C. Fo. 0002L dated April 2I, 200). /n said Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the August 2I, 2002 Decision of the Regional 3rial Court (R3C*, -ranch L? of 4alolos, -ulacan, in Crim. Case Fo. ???:4: 2000, con$icting herein appellants Alberto 3abarnero (Alberto* and @ar' 3abarnero (@ar'* of the crime of 4urder. Apellants contended that the court a ;uo gra$el' erred in not considering the Gustif'ing circumstance of self:defense and the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender interposed b' accused:appellant @ar' 3abarnero.

I((u&) Are the contentions meritorious5

Rul#45) Fo. 3he Gustif'ing circumstance of self:defense on the part of @ar' cannot be considered 3he re;uisites for self:defense are! 1* unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim8 2* lac" of sufficient pro$ocation on the part of the accused8 and 9* emplo'ment of reasonable means to pre$ent and repel aggression. 3he defense in$o"es the said Gustif'ing circumstance, claiming that all of the abo$e three elements are present in the case at bar. 3here was allegedl' unlawful aggression on the part of 7rnesto when the latter deli$ered the first blow with the lead pipe. According to the defense, the means @ar' used to defend himself was reasonable, and the shouting shouted professions of his feelings for about 4ar' >ane could not be considered pro$ocation sufficient for 7rnesto to ma"e the unlawful aggression. Knlawful aggression is an indispensable re;uirement of self:defense of self:defense. As ruled b' the Court of Appeals, the e$idence presented b' @ar' to pro$e the alleged unlawful aggression, namel', his own testimon', is insufficient and self:ser$ing. 3he alleged sudden appearance of 7rnesto and his first attac" with the lead pipe the $er' moment @ar' decided to lea$e seems to this Court to be all too con$enient, considering that there was no one around to witness the start of the fight. /t also bears to emphasiBe that b' in$o"ing self:defense, @ar', in effect, admitted "illing 7rnesto, thus, shifting upon him the burden of e$idence to pro$e the elements of the said Gustif'ing circumstance. A plea of self:defense cannot be Gustifiabl' appreciated where it is not onl' uncorroborated b' independent and competent e$idence, but also e<tremel' doubtful in itself.

3he defense further argues that assuming that @ar' is not ;ualified to a$ail of the Gustif'ing circumstance of self:defense, he would ne$ertheless be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self: defense under Article 19(1* of the Re$ised %enal Code. @ar' is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender 3he first assignment of error presents another issue for the consideration of this Court. 3he defense argues that @ar's 'ielding to Alarma should be credited as a mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender. 3he &olicitor @eneral agreed with the defense on this point. 3he Court of Appeals, howe$er, disagreed, and held that the dela' of si< months before surrendering negates spontaneit', a re;uisite for $oluntar' surrender to be considered mitigating. .e agree with the Court of Appeals. /n order that the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender ma' be credited to the accused, the following re;uisites should be present! (a* the offender has not actuall' been arrested8 (b* the offender surrendered himself to a person in authorit'8 and (c* the surrender must be $oluntar'. A surrender, to be $oluntar', must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he ac"nowledges his guilt or because he wishes to sa$e them the trouble and e<penses in capturing him. /n the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the authorities after more than one 'ear had lapsed since the incident and in order to disclaim responsibilit' for the "illing of the $ictim. 3his neither shows repentance or ac"nowledgment of the crime nor intention to sa$e the go$ernment the trouble and e<pense necessaril' incurred in his search and capture. -esides, at the time of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest against him. +ence, he should not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODRIGO A8ID AND ,AD*, GANIH G.R. No. 185388, Ju4& 10, 2 1 9#%4!--#45 2o" "!4(o: =AC3&! On >anuar' I, 2000 onl' 4rs. ,ee was left in the house, accompanied b' three housemaids, and the accused 7rnesto Andagao, a gardener:housebo'. 3he' all slept in an e<tension of the main house, which e<tension had three rooms. 4rs. ,ee was in one with her 11 >apanese &pitB puppies. Fe<t to hers was the room where Andagao slept, and then there was the room of the housemaids.
%art of 4rs. ,ees night routine was to let her puppies out of her room about midnight so the' could ta"e a lea". At the earl' dawn of >anuar' 10, 2000, after opening the door of her room to let her puppies out, 4rs. ,ee was surprised to see a stranger, a man, standing a few meters from her door. &he immediatel' went bac" in and tried to shut her door close but the man succeeded in pushing the door open and pulling her out of the room Gust as another man appeared. &omeone struc" 4rs. ,ee with a gun on both shoulders and "ic"ed her on the ribs. .hen she fell down, she recei$ed a "ic" on her buttoc"s. Although she cannot recogniBed the faces of her abductors because she was blindfolded and co$ered b'

blac" cloth, she noticed that the' left Eamboanga Cit'. After tra$eling three to four hours, the' arri$ed in a house which she later "new that it belonged to a certain &uod +ussain. On >anuar' 10, 2000, 4rs. ,ee met accused 4adum @anih. &he was held for 20 da's and during that time she communicated her husband with the order of @anih to prepare a ransom of %1),000,000. 4r. ,ee as"ed the "idnappers to lower the amount since he could onl' raise an amount of %1,000,000. Calling her famil' a third time, the "idnappers reduced their demand to %H million and threatened to cut off 4rs. ,ees head unless this was paid. /n the e$ening of 4a' ), 2000, @anih told 4rs. ,ee that the' would release her the ne<t da'. At about H!00 a.m. of 4a' , 2000, her abductors brought 4rs. ,ee to Arena -lanco in Eamboanga Cit' where @anih ga$e her %100.00 for fare and an 4209 bullet as memento. &he e$entuall' got home. &ometime after, the police arrested some men which in a police line:up, 4rs. ,ee later positi$el' identified as her abductors. =or his part, @anih denied the allegations and claimed an alibi that he was in his house at the said incident. On 4a' 21, 2002 the R3C rendered Gudgment,con$icting @anih of the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalt' of death. 3he R3C, howe$er, ac;uitted Awid for insufficienc' of e$idence.

/&&K7! /s accused @anih, in conspirac' with others, guilt' of "idnapping for ransom5

RK,/F@! 3o pro$e the crime charged, the prosecution had to show (a* that the accused was a

pri$ate person8 (b* that he "idnapped or detained or in an' manner depri$ed another of his or her libert'8 (c* that the "idnapping or detention was illegal8 and (d* that the $ictim was "idnapped or detained for ransom. All these ha$e been pro$ed in this case. &ignificantl', @anih offered nothing but his bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi to counter the o$erwhelming e$idence that the prosecution adduced against him. +is other contention is that the police made 4rs. ,ee identif' him, not in a proper police line:up but in a mere show:up after gi$ing her some improper suggestions. .hat the Court condemns are prior or contemporaneous improper suggestions that point out the suspect to the witness as the perpetrator to be identified. -esides, granting that the out:of: court identification was irregular, 4rs. ,ees court testimon' clearl' shows that she positi$el' identified @anih independentl' of the pre$ious identification she made in front of the police station. 4rs. ,ee could not ha$e made a mista"e in identif'ing him since she had ample opportunities to stud' the faces and peculiar bod' mo$ements of her "idnappers in her almost four months of ordeal with them./ndeed, she was candid and direct in her recollection, narrating e$ents as she saw them ta"e place. +er testimon', including her identification of the appellant, was positi$e, straightforward, and categorical. 3he totalit' of the prosecutions e$idence pro$es be'ond reasonable doubt that @anih and the others with him "idnapped 4rs. ,ee for ransom. 3he crime was punishable b' death at the time of its commission but, with the enactment of Republic Act I9H that prohibits the

imposition of such penalt', the CA was correct in lowering the penalt' to reclusion perpetua without eligibilit' for parole under the /ndeterminate &entence ,aw.

P&o-l& o2 '7& P7#l#--#4&( .(. I54!$#o Po"!( G.R. No. 1777+7, F&1. 10, 2 1 R!-& lo;&"&% 'o A$'( o2 L!($#.#ou(4&(( =acts!

3he $ictim was made to drin" coffee (which was drugged* b' the accused which caused her to sleep. .hen she wo"e up, she saw the accused mo$ing on top of her and touching her pri$ate parts. &he also noticed that the strap of her bra had been remo$ed, and her pant' alread' lowered to her "nees. .hen she pushed the appellant, the latter raised his brief and went to his room, threatening to "ill her if she would disclose the incident to an'one. &he did not call for help because she felt wea". On the witness stand, she also said that she felt pain in her $agina. 3he trial court found the accused guilt' of rape.

/ssue!

Do the facts show be'ond reasonable doubt that the crime of rape was committed5

+eld!

Fo. .e find that the prosecution failed to pro$e the appellants guilt be'ond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. .e con$ict him instead of the lesser of acts of lasci$iousness, included in rape, as the e$idence on record shows the presence of all the elements of this crime. /n the present case, the lower courts con$icted the appellant of rape based on the following circumstances! (a* the appellant made #/C3/4 drin" coffee which made her fall asleep8 (b* #/C3/4 saw the appellant l'ing beside her, mo$ing on top of her, and touching her pri$ate parts when she woke up8 (c* #/C3/4s pant' had been lowered to her "nees, and the

strap of her bra had been remo$ed8 (d* the appellant put on his briefs and shorts after #/C3/4 pushed her8 (e* #/C3/4 felt pain in her pri$ate parts, and saw blood stains on her pant'8 (f* the appellant threatened to "ill #/C3/4 if she disclosed the incident to an'one8 and (g* the e<amining ph'sician found deep:healed lacerations in #/C3/4s $agina.

After due consideration of the e$idence adduced, that the circumstantial e$idence failed to clearl' establish an unbro"en chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that the appellant raped #/C3/4.

.e cannot e;uate a ruptured h'men with rape. medical certificate or the testimon' of the ph'sician is presented not to pro$e that the $ictim was raped but to show that the latter had lost her $irginit'. Conse;uentl', standing alone, a ph'sicians finding that the h'men of the alleged $ictim was lacerated does not pro$e rape. /t is onl' when this is corroborated b' other e$idence pro$ing carnal "nowledge that rape ma' be deemed to ha$e been established.

3hus, while the healed lacerations are undisputed, the' can onl' pro$e, in the absence of an' other e$idence, that #/C3/4 has had prior se<ual e<perience. &pecific proof of penile contact, on or about the time the appellant allegedl' raped her, is missing.

7$en assuming, for the sa"e of argument, that the appellant succeeded in inserting his fingers in #/C3/4s $agina, this act still would not suffice to con$ict the appellant of rape. /n 1IIH, the insertion of one or more fingers into a womans $agina without her consent did not constitute rape. /t was onl' in 1IIL that the law on rape was e<panded to include this act.

.e find it highl' unli"el' that the appellant inserted his penis into #/C3/4s $agina while the latters pant' was lowered to her "nees. Common sense and ordinar' human e<perience show that penile penetration is e<tremel' difficult, if not almost impossible under this situation, unless the $ictims legs were spread apart.

Considering that #/C3/4 was an unmarried 19:'ear old, she would ha$e been in unusuall' deep sleep in order not to feel the pain and sensation reasonabl' e<pected from the insertion of a penis into her 'oung, $aginal canal. .e are baffled how could she ha$e slept through a consummated se<ual intercourse and awa"ened onl' after its completion. 3he con$iction in a rape case though must rest on e$idence, not on mere possibilit'.

.e cannot e;uate #/C3/4s testimon' of pain in her pri$ate parts with rape. Carnal "nowledge, not pain, is the element of consummated rape and we belie$e that it would be a dangerous proposition to e;uate a $ictims testimon' of pain, in the absence of an' other e$idence, with carnal "nowledge. 3he peril lies in the facilit' of asserting pain. %ain, too, can come from $arious reasons other than carnal "nowledge8 it is also subGecti$e and is eas' to feign.

Finally, we cannot help but obser$e that #/C3/4, in her direct testimon', re$ealed that she merel' came to the conclusion that the appellant had raped her afterbeing told b' the e<amining ph'sician that the result of the medical e<amination was 0positive,1 and that something had happened to her. /n $iew of the foregoing, the findings of con$iction is $acated. Accused is instead found guilt' of crime of acts of lasci$iousness. G.R. No. 185 12 ,!"$7 5, 2 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, $s. VICTOR VILLARINO y ,A<*TE R!-& ;#'7 Ho:#$#%& FACTS) On April 2?, 1II), N---N, together with her 10:'ear old daughter NAAAN and her 'ounger son NCCCN went to the house of their relati$e in Barangay NDN to attend the fiesta to be held the ne<t da'. .hile personall' ser$ing food and drin"s to appellant, &%0H @enoguin noticed that the latter was wearing a bracelet and a nec"lace with pendant. One Rodrigo also noticed appellant wearing a bracelet and a nec"lace with pendant and wearing a white slee$eless t:shirt (sando*. .hile at the house of N---sN aunt, N---N also noticed that he was dressed in a white sando and that he wore Gewelr' consisting of a bracelet and a nec"lace with pendant.+e was later seen wearing the same sando and Gewelr' while drin"ing at the bas"etball court in Barangay NDN. N---N told NAAAN to go home to Barangay ND1N to get a t:shirt for her brother. NAAAN obe'ed. +owe$er, she no longer returned. .hile N---N was an<iousl' waiting for NAAAN in the house of her aunt in Barangay NDN,she recei$ed information that a dead child had been found in Barangay ND1N. &he proceeded to the area where she identified the childs bod' as that of her daughter, NAAAN NAAAsN lifeless bod' la' face up with her buttoc"s on top of a small roc". +er bod' was slanted downward with her legs spread apart and dangling on the sides of the small boulder. &he was no longer wearing short pants and pant', and blood ooBed from her $agina. .rapped around her right hand, which was positioned near her right ear, was a white sando.N A bracelet and a

pendant were also reco$ered from the crime scene. On the same da', the appellant was found near the seashore of Barangay ND1N. +e was drun" and $iolent. +e resisted arrest and had to be bodil' carried to the motorboat that would ta"e him to the municipal building in Almagro, &amar. 3he arresting team made the appellant ta"e off his clothes since the' were wet. .hen he complied, his briefs re$ealed bloodstains. 3he police brought appellant to Calba'og Cit' for medical e<amination since he had scratches and abrasions on his bod'. .hile waiting for a boat ride the appellant $oluntaril' admitted to &%OH @enoguin that he committed the crime charged. +e also told &%OH @enoguin that he could "eep the pendant and bracelet if he would retrie$e the t:shirt and throw it into the sea. +e further offered to gi$e &%OH @enoguin %20,000.00 if he would throw the sando into the sea. +owe$er, the police officer ignored the offer and instead reported the matter to the Chief of %olice. ,ater, the appellants mother, =elicidad 4abute ' ,egaspi, as"ed &%OH @enoguin not to testif' against her son. ISS*E) /s the confession of the accused to the officer admissible5 R*LING) 6es. /n the special comple< crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur! (1* the appellant had carnal "nowledge of a woman8 (2* carnal "nowledge of a woman was achie$ed b' means of force, threat or intimidation8 and (9* b' reason or on occasion of such carnal "nowledge b' means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant "illed a woman. .hen the $ictim is a minor, howe$er, it is sufficient that the e$idence pro$es that the appellant had se<ual intercourse or se<ual bodil' connections with the $ictim. .hen appellant confessed to the crime, he was alone with &%OH @enoguin, and no force or intimidation was emplo'ed against him. 3he confession was spontaneousl' made and not elicited through ;uestioning. 3he trial court did not, therefore, err in holding that compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case. At an' rate, e$en without his confession, appellant could still be con$icted of the comple< crime of rape with homicide through circumstantial e$idence which were credible and sufficient, and led to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the comple< crime of rape with homicide. .hen considered together, the circumstances point to the appellant as the culprit. First. %rior to the incident, three witnesses saw the appellant wearing the white slee$eless t:shirt, a nec"lace with pendant and a bracelet Second. 3he pendant and bracelet were later reco$ered a few meters awa' from the lifeless bod' of NAAAN. 3he white sando was also found clasped in the right hand of the $ictim. hird. 3he appellant could no longer produce the sando and pieces of Gewelr' after his arrest. Fourth. 3he ph'sical e<amination on the appellant re$ealed 10 healed abrasions and two linear abrasions or scratches on his breast, "nees and ears which could ha$e been caused b' the fingernails of the $ictim. Fifth. 3he $ictim had blood ooBing from her $aginal orifice, while the appellant had human blood:stains on his briefs. Si!th. 3he appellant attempted to bribe &%OH @enoguin and the policemen who were escorting him to Calba'og Cit', b' offering them %20,000.00 in e<change for the disposal of his white slee$eless t:shirt found in the crime scene. Seventh. 3he appellants mother re;uested &%OH @enoguin not to testif' against her son.

G.R. No. 17351

,!"$7 15, 2 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, $s. ERPASC*AL DIEGA y PAJARES R!-& ;#'7 Ho:#$#%& FACTS) 3he $ictim, NAAAN, was a 19:'ear old girl residing with her famil' in RodrigueB, RiBal. &he was a 1st 'ear high school student and would usuall' lea$e her home at H!00 ocloc" in the morning and wal" for about a "ilometer to a terminal where she could ta"e a ride to school. 3he path towards the terminal passes a farm within a )0:hectare plantation located at Kpper Ciudad Real, Araneta, &an >ose Del 4onte, -ulacan, where the appellant was emplo'ed as a sta':in securit' guard. NAAAN uses the same route on her wa' home. On 4arch 1L, 1II), NAAAN failed to return home at the usual time. +er parents franticall' searched for her, but it was onl' on the ne<t da', when the dead bod' of NAAAN was disco$ered inside the plantation. NAAAsN corpse was co$ered with lea$es. A wood $ine was tied around her nec" and her head bore se$eral wounds. +er school uniform was crumpled and her pant' was missing. 3he medico: legal e<amination indicated that she died of Nasph'<ia b' strangulation, hemorrhages as a result of traumatic inGuries, head and bod'N. 3here were deep, fresh lacerations at 9!00 and I!00 ocloc" positions and a shallow fresh laceration at L!00 ocloc" position in her h'men which Nare compatible with recent loss of $irginit'.N 3he police in$estigation re$ealed that >uanito 4analo /// (>uanito* was tending to the graBing carabaos inside the plantation when he saw the appellant stooping down. 3he appellant stood up clad onl' in his shorts and wa$ed his pistol to call >uanito. As >uanito approached, he saw that the appellant had a menacing loo" and noticed NAAAN l'ing unconscious on the ground. 3he appellant then pointed his pistol to >uanito and ordered him to touch the bod' of NAAAN and to tie a $ine around her nec". Out of fear, >uanito obe'ed and disco$ered that NAAAN no longer had undergarments. +e was permitted to lea$e, but onl' after the appellant threatened to "ill him and his famil' if he would re$eal to an'one what he witnessed. As >uanito fled from the scene, he was seen b' 4artin @ailan (4artin* and Arnel Alminana (Arnel* who were also pri$' to the death threats made b' the appellant. 3he police in$estigation also re$ealed that prior to the commission of the crime, NAAAN and her aunt used to pass b' the plantation and e$er' time the appellant would see them, especiall' when he was drun", he would whistle at NAAAN and e$en touch her upper arm. At one time, the appellant uttered to NAAAsN aunt, N4isis, ingatan mo ang i'ong pamang"in.N %ending trial, appellant absconded and remained at:large until his arrest in his hometown in -a'ba' @ama' in Forthern &amar ISS*E) Can the guilt be pro$en b' circumstantial e$idence5 R*LING) 6es. /n a special comple< crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur! (1* the appellant had carnal "nowledge of a woman8 (2* carnal "nowledge of a woman was achie$ed b' means of force, threat or intimidation8 and (9* b' reason or on occasion of such carnal "nowledge b' means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant "illed a woman.-oth

rape and homicide must be established be'ond reasonable doubt. Considering that there were no witnesses to the commission of the crime charged herein, the weight of the prosecutions e$idence must then be appreciated in light of the well:settled rule that an accused can be con$icted e$en in the absence of an e'ewitness, as long as sufficient circumstantial e$idence is presented b' the prosecution to pro$e be'ond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Circumstantial e$idence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the e<istence of the main fact ma' be inferred according to reason and common e<perience. /t is sufficient to sustain con$iction if! (a* there is more than one circumstance8 (b* the facts from which the inferences were deri$ed ha$e been established8 and (c* the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt be'ond reasonable doubt. Appellant 7rpascual Diega ' %aGares is found G*ILT= be'ond reasonable doubt of the comple< crime of rape with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua without eligibilit' for parole. Appellant is ordered to pa' the heirs of NAAAN ci$il indemnit'.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES .(. JESSIE VILLEGAS ,*RCIA G.R. No. 182+0 ,!"$7 9, 2 1 A"(o4 !4% F"u('"!'&% Ho:#$#%&

FACTS) 7ulogio Auilates (7ulogio* is the owner of a two:store' house in %aringao, -auang, ,a Knion. Among the occupants of his house were his sister =elicidad Auilates (=elicidad*8 another sister Alicia 4anlupig (Alicia*8 and nephew +erminio 4anlupig (+erminio*. Appellant, who is the adopted son of =elicidad, occupied one room in the house. At around 9!90 p.m. of 2H 4arch 200H, appellant was ha$ing a drin"ing spree with his cousin +erminio and brothers:in:law >oe' #idu'a and Ric"' #idu'a (Ric"'* in front of their house. Appellant and +erminio were arguing o$er the matter of caring for =elicidad while the latter was confined in the hospital. Ric"' tried to mediate between the two. Appellant was then seen going inside the house to get a bolo. .hen he emerged from the house ten (10* minutes later, he ran after +erminio but the latter managed to escape unscathed. Appellant again went bac" to the house.

4eanwhile, after pacif'ing appellant and +erminio, Ric"' resumed drin"ing. A few minutes later, he saw smo"e coming from the room of appellant. As Ric"' was about to enter the house, he met appellant at the door. Appellant apparentl' tried to stab Ric"' but was unsuccessful. Ric"' witnessed appellant stab =elicidad and Alicia. +erminio, who had since come bac" to the drin"ing table, also saw the smo"e. +e peeped through the small window of the house and

witnessed appellant burning some clothes and bo<es in the sala. +erminio immediatel' went inside the house to sa$e his personal belongings. Kpon emerging from the house, +erminio saw his mother, Alicia, bloodied. Alicia testifies that she was sitting on a chair near the toilet when she saw smo"e coming out of appellants room. -efore she could react, appellant came charging at her and stabbed her. &he sustained wounds on her upper thigh, arms, below her breast and on her ear. Alicia was still able to as" for help, and her daughter:in:law brought her to the hospital. Appellant admitted to the crime of frustrated homicide, hence the re$iew is limited to the crime of arson. ISS*E) /s circumstamtial e$idence enough to pro$e the guilt of appellant5

R*LING) 6es. /n the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the e$idence establishes! (1* the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agenc'8 and (2* the identit' of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. /n arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied b' proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it ha$ing been intentionall' caused. 7$en the uncorroborated testimon' of a single e'ewitness, if credible, is enough to pro$e the corpus delicti and to warrant con$iction.

/n order to Gustif' a con$iction upon circumstantial e$idence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to lea$e no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal responsibilit' of the accused.

/ndeed, appellant was last seen inside the house before the fire started. 7ulogio and Ric"' saw smo"e emanating from the room of appellant. +erminio testified that he saw appellant burning clothes in his room. Appellant then went on a stabbing rampage while the house was on fire. .hile nobod' directl' saw appellant burn the house, these circumstances would 'ield to a logical conclusion that the fire that gutted eight (?* houses was authored b' appellant.

A close e<amination of the records, as well as description of the crime as stated in the information, re$eals that the crime committed is in fact simple arson because the burned properties are residential houses. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .( LITO ,ACAPANAS y ECIJA

G.R. No. 187 +9 ,!y +, 2 1 R!-&

FACTS) At around L!90 a.m. on December L, 1III, AAA, a student of 7astern &amar &tate Agricultural College, was wal"ing on the feeder road of -aranga' OOO, &alcedo, 7astern &amar going to the waiting shed where she was to ta"e a ride to school. &he was )0 to 0 meters awa' from the waiting shed when the appellant, wearing a ma"eshift s"i mas" and armed with a bladed weapon locall' "nown as sundang, grabbed her hair. Appellant po"ed the sundang on her side and pulled her towards a grass' area. &he tried to free herself and pleaded for merc', but to no a$ail. .hen the' reached a nearb' stream, appellant sho$ed AAA towards an uninhabited house with the "nife. /nside, appellant told her to undress, but AAA did not obe'. &he as"ed appellant to remo$e his mas" so she could identif' him. Appellant acceded and remo$ed his mas". 3hen, he ordered her anew to remo$e her dress. .hen she refused, appellant grabbed her s"irt and forcibl' remo$ed the buttons to open her s"irt. Appellant then pushed her to the floor where he remo$ed her pant'. +e mounted her and succeeded in ha$ing intercourse with her. After satisf'ing his lust, appellant allowed AAA to put on her dress with a warning that he would "ill her if she tells an'one about what happened. .hen AAA saw plent' of people on the road, she shouted for help. Appellant then stabbed her at the bac" and fled. AAA was brought to the &outhern &amar @eneral +ospital where she was confined for nine (I* da's. On the third da' of AAAs confinement, the' suspected that something more had happened to AAA, but she merel' cried and did not answer their ;uestions. On her si<th da' of confinement, AAA, accompanied b' her mother, admitted she was also raped.

ISS*E! .hether appellants guilt for the crime of rape has been pro$en be'ond reasonable doubt.

R*LING) 6es. 3he fact that AAA did not immediatel' re$eal that she was raped b' appellant does not necessaril' impair AAAs credibilit'. +ow the $ictim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Fot all rape $ictims can be e<pected to act conformabl' to the usual e<pectations of e$er'one. Different and $ar'ing degrees of beha$ioral responses are e<pected in the pro<imit' of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. /t is settled that different people react differentl' to a gi$en

situation or t'pe of situation and there is no standard form of human beha$ioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful e<perience.

/n this case, the dela' in reporting the se<ual assault was reasonable and e<plained. AAA ade;uatel' e<plained that she did not immediatel' inform an'one of her ordeal because she was ashamed and afraid because appellant had threatened to "ill her. 3hus, her reluctance that caused the dela' should not be ta"en against her. Feither can it be used to diminish her credibilit' nor undermine the charge of rape.

.hile appellant was not placed in a police line:up for identification b' AAA, the absence of such police line:up does not ma"e AAAs identification of appellant as the one (1* who raped her, unreliable. 3here is no law or police regulation re;uiring a police line:up for proper identification in e$er' case. 7$en if there was no police line:up, there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or instigated to the witness b' the police. .hat is crucial is for the witness to positi$el' declare during trial that the person charged was the malefactor. =or one (1* to be con$icted of ;ualified rape, at least one (1* of the aggra$atingM;ualif'ing circumstances mentioned in Article 2 :- of the Re$ised %enal Code, as amended, must be alleged in the /nformation and dul' pro$ed during the trial. /n the case at bar, appellant used a sharp:pointed bolo locall' "nown as sundang in consummating the salacious act. 3his circumstance was alleged in the /nformation and dul' pro$ed during trial. -eing in the nature of a ;ualif'ing circumstance, 0use of a deadl' weapon1 increases the penalties b' degrees, and cannot be treated merel' as a generic aggra$ating circumstance which affects onl' the period of the penalt'. 3his so:called ;ualified form of rape committed with the use of a deadl' weapon carries a penalt' of reclusion perpetua to death. As such, the presence of generic aggra$ating and mitigating circumstances will determine whether the lesser or higher penalt' shall be imposed. .hen, as in this case, neither mitigating nor aggra$ating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the minimum penalt', i.e." reclusion perpetua, should be the penalt' imposable pursuant to Article 9 of the Re$ised %enal Code. 3hus, both trial and appellate courts properl' imposed on appellant the penalt' of reclusion perpetua. 7<emplar' damages should li"ewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2290 of the Ci$il Code since the special aggra$ating circumstance of the use of a deadl' weapon attended the commission of the rape.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES .(. PASTOR LLANAS, JR. y <ELCHES G.R. No. 19 010 Ju4& 29, 2 1

R!-& FACTS) Appellant is legall' married to ---, AAAs mother, and that he is the father of AAA, his and ---s onl' child. 3he first incident happened sometime in 1II? when AAA was onl' a I:'ear old grade /// schoolgirl. On the fateful da' of that 'ear, appellant tric"ed AAA into going with him to a 0camalig1 to pla'. Once inside, appellant laid her on the bamboo floor and remo$ed her garments. /n all her innocence, AAA as"ed wh' she is being undressed onl' to be told b' the appellant not to report an'thing, else he would "ill her and ---. After ta"ing off his clothes, appellant parted AAAs legs, went on top of her, inserted his se< organ to hers and made the usual push:and:pull routine. One da' the following 'ear, appellant again se<uall' abused AAA, now 10 'ears old. /n the witness bo<, AAA could not recall whether the incident happened in the morning or in the afternoon, but she distinctl' remembered that it occurred in 1III, being in @rade /# at that time and it was the 'ear the famil' mo$ed to another house in the same barrio. 3hen on August H, 200), at around 1!00 ocloc" in the afternoon, while --- was out of the house, appellant approached AAA, now 1) 'ears old, to as" her to pla'. 3his remar" frightened AAA, as this was the same line used when she was abused in the past. AAA spurned the in$itation to pla', but the insistent appellant told her that! 0para lang yan. /ts Gust that. 6ou are not going to be pregnant because /m withdrawing m' semen.1 3here and then, appellant brought her to a room, stripped her of her shorts and pant' and li"ewise remo$ed his garments. .hat happened ne<t was a $irtual repeat of what appellant did in 1II? and 1III after he as"ed AAA to pla'. Responding later to ---s ;uestioning wh' she was cr'ing, AAA disclosed e$er'thing to her mother. 3hereafter, ---, with AAA in tow, proceeded to the local police station to report about the incidents, after which --- repaired to the local Fational -ureau of /n$estigation office to ha$e AAA ph'sicall' e<amined.

3he records of the ph'sical e<amination 'ielded! 0no e!tragenital physical in#ury ! ! ! on the body of $%%%& at the ti'e of e!a'ination( old healed hy'enal lacerations present( and hy'enal orifice wide ! ! ! as to allow co'plete penetration by an average sized adult 'ale organ in full erection without producing hy'enal in#ury.1

ISS*E) Appellant see"s ac;uittal, predicating his plea principall' on the issue of! (1* the credibilit' of the prosecutions "e' witness8 and (2* the sufficienc' of the %eoples e$idence.

R*LING) Rape is essentiall' an offense of secrec' in$ol$ing onl' two persons and not generall' attempted sa$e in secluded places far from pr'ing e'es. -' the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usuall' commences solel' upon the word of the offended girl herself and con$iction in$ariabl' turns upon her credibilit', as the %eoples single witness of the actual occurrence.=oremost of these! an offended womans testimon' hurdling the e<acting test of credibilit' would suffice to con$ict. /n fine, the credibilit' of the $ictim is alwa's the single most important issue in prosecution for rape. .ithal, in passing upon the credibilit' of the $ictim: witness, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the e$aluation and findings of the trial court. Appellants ob$ious thesis that a minor rape $ictim alwa's results in $aginal inGur' rests on a lot of o$ersimplification and, hence, must be eschewed. 3o start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinaril' result in h'menal rupture or laceration of the $agina of a girl of tender 'ears, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. 3he mere "noc"ing at the door of the pudenda b' the accuseds penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape. 3he medical report on AAA is onl' corroborati$e of the finding of rape. 3he absence of fresh e<ternal signs or ph'sical inGuries on the complainants bod' does not necessaril' negate the commission of rape, h'menal laceration and li"e $aginal inGuries not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. .hat is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the $ictims testimon' and not the findings of the medico:legal officer. /n fact, a medical e<amination of the $ictim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape8 the $ictims testimon' alone, if credible, is, to repeat, sufficient to con$ict. /n rape cases, the concurrence, as here, of the $ictims minorit' (under 1?* and her relationship with the offender is a special ;ualif'ing circumstance for which the law prescribes the penalt' of death underArt. 2 :- of the Re$ised %enal Code. 3he imposition of the penalt' of reclusion perpetua, instead of death, for each count of ;ualified rape, on appellant who shall not be eligible for parole under the /ndeterminate &entence ,aw is in order in light of R.A. I9H or the the Anti: Death %enalt' ,aw, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalt'.

G.R. No. 1877+2

A-"#l 2 , 2 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, $s. CRI>ALDO PACHECO y VILLAN*EVA R!-& FACTS) AAA li$ed with her mother, ---, and accused:appellant, ---s li$e:in partner, in 4alabon Cit'. &he recalled that accused:appellant had raped her man' times, the last of which happened on >anuar' L, 2002 at around 2 ocloc" in the morning. At that time, she was awa"ened from her sleep when accused:appellant was remo$ing her clothes. +e then remo$ed his clothes also and proceeded to mount her, inserting his penis into her $agina and repeating a pumping

mo$ement. AAA felt pain in her $agina but could not cr' out as accused:appellant threatened to maul and bo< her as he had pre$iousl' done. After ha$ing carnal "nowledge of AAA, accused: appellant then went to sleep. AAA e$entuall' re$ealed accused:appellants lecher' to one of her teachers, who accompanied her to -anta' -ata A-&:C-F to as" for help. AAA then ga$e the police a statement of what had happened to her. %M&/nsp. &abino testified in her capacit' as 4edico:,egal Officer of the %hilippine Fational %olice (%F%* .omens Crime and Child %rotection Center. +er ano:genital e<amination on AAA re$ealed that the child had deep healed laceration at ocloc" position. On appeal, accused:appellant faulted the trial court for erroneousl' ruling against him e$en if (1* the rape could not ha$e been committed inside a room where AAAs mother and other siblings were also sleeping8 (2* AAA belatedl' reported the rape8 (9* the prosecution failed to establish with certaint' that the h'menal laceration was the direct result of his raping AAA8 (H* AAA could ha$e shouted or resisted if she was reall' raped8 and ()* AAA was moti$ated b' ill feelings in accusing accused:appellant of rape. ISS*E) .hether the CA gra$el' erred in finding the accused:appellant guilt' of the crime charged. R*LING) Fo. 3he arguments raised b' the defense are o$erused and insubstantial. 3he Re$ised %enal Code defines statutor' rape as se<ual intercourse with a girl below 12 'ears old. 3he two elements of statutor' rape are! (1* that the accused had carnal "nowledge of a woman8 and (2* that the woman was below 12 'ears of age. .hat the law punishes in statutor' rape is carnal "nowledge of a woman below twel$e (12* 'ears old. 3hus, force, intimidation and ph'sical e$idence of inGur' are not rele$ant considerations8 the onl' subGect of in;uir' is the age of the woman and whether carnal "nowledge too" place. /n prosecuting rape cases, we reiterate from pre$ious rulings that the elo;uent testimon' of the $ictim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non:$irgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges. >urisprudence holds that the failure of the $ictim to shout for help does not negate rape. 7$en the $ictims lac" of resistance, especiall' when intimidated b' the offender into submission, does not signif' $oluntariness or consent. .hile AAA ma' not ha$e e<erted effort to free herself from her rapist, her actions can be e<plained b' the fear she alread' had of accused:appellant, who had beat her up on more than one occasion. Accused:appellants moral ascendanc' o$er AAA, combined with memories of pre$ious beatings, was more than enough to intimidate AAA and rendered her helpless while she was being $ictimiBed. 3he burden of going through a rape prosecution is grossl' out of proportion to whate$er re$enge the 'oung girl would be able to e<act. 3he Court has Gustifiabl' thus ruled, as the O&@ noted, that a girl of tender age would not allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue Gustice for what has happened.

As this Court has pre$iousl' ruled, accused:appellant can still be con$icted of rape on the sole basis of the testimon' of the $ictim. +ence, e$en if the medical findings are disregarded, in the end, the prosecution has successfull' pro$ed the case of rape against accused:appellant on the basis of AAAs testimon'. 3he Re$ised %enal Code punishes statutor' rape with reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 177138

J!4u!"y 20, 2 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, $s. JOEL G*ILLER,O R!-&

FACTS) AAA testified that when she was 19 'ears of age, she and appellant, who is her first cousin, li$ed at her grandparents house. &he, with her siblings, slept in the sala illuminated b' a "erosene lamp. On three separate occasions, she wo"e up in the middle of the night to find the appellant wielding a "nife and remo$ing her clothes and blan"et. +e subse;uentl' forced her to engage in se<ual intercourse with him. 3he appellant threatened to "ill her and the rest of her famil' if she reported the incident. -ecause she belie$ed the threats of the appellant, she "ept ;uiet about the incidents until her elementar' school teacher noticed that she was pregnant. AAA re$ealed to her the dastardl' acts of the appellant. &he accompanied AAA to report the matter to her father. 3he' then proceeded to the police station to file the complaint. Dr. @anciPia testified that AAA disclosed that appellant forced her to engage in se<ual relations with him. &he found that AAA had cer$ical lacerations and confirmed that AAA was ) to months pregnant. --- testified that on &eptember 2?, 1II?, when she was 12 'ears old, appellant se<uall' abused her. &he li$ed at her grandparents house. At night, she slept in the sala (which was illuminated b' a "erosene lamp* beside her siblings. One e$ening, she wo"e up as she felt someone lic"ing her genitals. 3o her surprise, she disco$ered that her clothes had been remo$ed and appellant was on top of her. Appellant succeeded in ha$ing se<ual intercourse with her. 3hroughout the entire ordeal, appellant was holding a "nife and threatening to "ill her and her famil' if she told an'one about the incident. Dr. @anciPia testified that, after e<amining --- she found four healed lacerations in the childs cer$i<. =or its part, the defense argued that AAA was the sweetheart of appellant, and the' had four se<ual encounters when she accepted his lo$e proposal. +e insisted on the $alidit' of the affida$it of desistance b' AAA. .ith respect to ---s accusation, appellant said that --- was li"e a sister and he treated her accordingl'. +e was not aware of an' reason for her to accuse him of molesting her.

ISS*E) /s the defense of the accused tenable5 R*LING) Fo. 3he Nsweetheart theor'N is an admission of carnal "nowledge of the $ictim and conse;uentl' places on the accused the burden of pro$ing the supposed relationship b' substantial e$idence. Appellant presented no e$idence to substantiate his claim. =urthermore, the Court does not loo" with fa$or on affida$its of retraction. Recanted testimon' is highl' ;uestionable because it can be secured through monetar' considerations. /t is dangerous for courts to reGect testimonies solemnl' gi$en before the courts of Gustice simpl' because the witnesses who made them change their minds later on. &uch a rule would ma"e solemn trials a moc"er' and place the in$estigation of truth at the merc' of unscrupulous witnesses. +ere, the affida$it of retraction was precisel' e<ecuted b' AAA in e<change for financial assistance and land (which she ne$er recei$ed*. Appellants guilt of the crime of simple rape through force or intimidation has been established be'ond reasonable doubt. /nasmuch as the minorit' of both AAA and --- was not pro$en and their relationship with appellant was outside the scope of Article 1H of the R%C and Article 2 : - of RA Fo ?9)9, these circumstances cannot be considered as aggra$ating circumstances. Fonetheless, the $ictims are entitled to e<emplar' damages since appellant used a deadl' weapon to perpetrate the offense. .hile the use of a deadl' weapon is not one of the generic aggra$ating circumstances in Article 1H of the R%C, under Article 2 :- thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalt', pro$ided that it has been alleged in the /nformation and pro$ed during trial. 3hus, e$en if the use of a deadl' weapon is not alleged in the /nformation but is pro$en during the trial, it ma' be appreciated to Gustif' the award of ci$il liabilit', particularl' e<emplar' damages. /n this instance, while the /nformation did not state that appellant possessed a deadl' weapon, the prosecution sufficientl' established that he threatened his $ictims with a "nife in order to facilitate the commission of his bestial acts and cow his $ictims into silence. /nasmuch as appellant ma' not be sentenced to death, the presence of such circumstance Gustifies the award of e<emplar' damages. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. A<ELLA G.R. No. 177295, J!4u!"y 0, 2 1 RAPE

=AC3&! AAA testified that she "new the appellant personall' since he was a child because the'

li$ed in the same neighborhood. &he narrated that sometime at around 1!00 ocloc" in the afternoon while she was alone at home the appellant entered their house and started molesting her. Appellant pulled down her shorts with his left hand while co$ering her mouth with his right hand. Appellant then placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her $agina. At that time, she did not shout as the appellant was holding a "nife. AAA recalled that when appellant inserted his penis into her $agina, she had felt pain. Afraid for her life, she did not tell her parents about the rape incident. ---, AAAs mother, on the other hand, testified that the appellant is the cousin of her husband. &he claimed that she noticed her daughter becoming pale and thinner. &he also noticed that AAAs stomach was getting bigger and thus decided to bring her to a doctor, who in turn informed her that her daughter might be pregnant. An ultrasound e<amination confirmed that AAA was indeed pregnant. --- then as"ed her daughter who was responsible for her pregnanc', AAA replied that it was the appellant. After trial, the R3C con$icted the accused:appellant. 3he trial court found the 9?:'ear old AAA as a credible witness and her testimon' candid and truthful despite her 0moderate mental retardation1 or intellectual ;uotient of a L to ?:'ear old child as testified b' Dr. 7scuadra, a specialist in the field of ps'chiatr' who e<amined and e$aluated AAA and CoraBon Alipante, a ps'chologist who also e<amined AAA. /n contrast, the trial court found that the defenses of denial and alibi of the accused:appellant were flims' and farfetched. /t further ruled that the child concei$ed and deli$ered b' AAA was fathered b' the accused:appellant. After its re$iew of the e$idence, the CA agreed with the findings of the R3C and affirmed the con$iction of the accused:appellant.

/&&K7! Did the prosecution pro$e the guilt of the accused be'ond reasonable doubt5

RK,/F@! 67&. Article 2 :A of the Re$ised %enal Code pro$ides that the crime of rape is committed b' a man ha$ing carnal "nowledge of a woman under an' of the following circumstances! (1* through force, threat or intimidation8 (2* when the offended part' is depri$ed of reason or otherwise unconscious8 (9* b' means of fraudulent machination or gra$e abuse of authorit'8 and (H* when the offended part' is under 12 'ears of age or is demented, e$en though none of the circumstances mentioned abo$e be present. /n People v. %ndaya, it was held that 0se<ual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 'ears old constitutes statutor' rape1 with or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation. /n the case before us, the prosecution has established be'ond reasonable doubt that the accused:appellant had carnal "nowledge of AAA, a demented person, through force, threat or intimidation. AAA was ps'chiatricall' e$aluated as an adult woman with the mental age of a L to ?:'ear old child and that she ga$e birth to a child despite her mental inabilit' to gi$e her consent to a se<ual relationship. 3hese facts support the allegation of se<ual abuse. AAA also

identified without uncertaint' the accused:appellant as her attac"er and related distinctl' that he forcibl' laid her down, held her at "nifepoint, and se<uall' abused her. 4oreo$er, we accord great weight and respect to the conclusion of the trial court that AAA is 0candid, sincere, straightforward and simple1 in her testimon' as well as to the ruling of the appellate court that the alleged flaws in her statements do not affect her credibilit' and $eracit' of her testimon' that the accused:appellant raped her, and that the defenses of denial and alibi of the accused:appellant cannot pre$ail o$er the positi$e testimon' of AAA. 3he criminal information failed to allege the ;ualif'ing circumstance that the accused:appellant "new of the mental disabilit' of the pri$ate offended part', thus, his con$iction of statutor' or simple rape committed with the use of a deadl' weapon, instead of ;ualified rape, is in order.

FLORDELI> VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 180++1, ,!"$7 3, 2 1 RAPE THRO*GH SE?*AL ASSA*LT AND ACTS OF LASCIVIO*SNESS

=AC3&! %etitioner &al$ador =lordeliB was con$icted of nine (I* counts of Rape and one (1* count of Acts of ,asci$iousness b' the R3C which was affirmed with modification b' the CA. A-C, the wife of petitioner and the mother of pri$ate complainants AAA and ---, left for 4ala'sia as o$erseas wor"er. AAA and --- were left under the care and custod' of petitioner. /n April 1II), while sleeping with --- and AAA, who was then ele$en (11* 'ears old, petitioner wo"e up AAA, touched her $agina, and then pla'ed with it. AAA cried and told petitioner that it was painful. 3he latter stopped, but warned AAA not to tell an'one about it otherwise, she would be harmed. %etitioner allegedl' committed the same acts against AAA repeatedl'. %etitioner and his daughters later transferred residence and li$ed with the formers siblings. Fot long after, petitioner was con$icted of homicide and imprisoned. .hile petitioner was incarcerated, AAA and --- $isited him and sent him two greeting cards. /n 2001, petitioner was released on parole. +e would fre;uentl' fetch AAA and --- from their grandparents house during wee"ends and holida's and the' would sta' with him.Knsatisfied with the abuses committed against AAA, petitioner allegedl' started molesting --- in 4a' 2002. On >anuar' 9, 2009, while the' were sleeping, petitioner inserted his two (2* fingers into ---s $agina. --did not attempt to stop petitioner because of fear. --- suffered the same ordeal the following night. On =ebruar' ?, 2009, --- $isited petitioner. Again, petitioner held her $agina, pla'ed with it and inserted his fingers, which caused her pain. 3he same incident allegedl' too" place on August 9, 2009. On October 2 , 2009, while --- was with petitioner, the latter committed the same dastardl' act. On Fo$ember 1 and 2, 2009, -- spent two nights with her father and, during those nights and she e<perienced the same se<ual abuse as well as on December 2?,

2009. --- did not re$eal her ordeal to an'bod' because of fear for her life and that of her mother. AAA and --- had the chance to re$eal their horrif'ing e<periences when their mother A-C arri$ed for a $acation. AAA immediatel' told A-C what petitioner did to her. .hen confronted b' A-C, --- li"ewise admitted the repeated abuses committed b' petitioner. A-C forthwith reported the incidents to the Fational -ureau of /n$estigation. After conducting medical e<aminations on AAA and ---, the attending ph'sician remar"ed that there was a 0disclosure of se<ual abuse and she noted the presence of h'menal notch in posterior portion of h'menal rim that ma' be due to pre$ious blunt force or penetrating trauma suggesti$e of abuse.1 %etitioner assails the factual and legal bases of his con$iction, allegedl' because of lac" of the essential details or circumstances of the commission of the crimes. %etitioner, in effect, ;uestions the credibilit' of the witnesses for the prosecution and insists that the charges against him were designed to conceal A-Cs infidelit'. /&&K7! /s the guilt of the accused pro$en be'ond reasonable doubt5

RK,/F@! 67&. 3he insertion of petitioners fingers into the $ictims $agina constituted the crime of Rape through se<ual assault under Republic Act (R.A.* Fo. ?9)9, or 03he Anti:Rape ,aw of 1IIL.1 Article 2 :A paragraph 2 pro$ides that rape through se<ual assault is committed b' an' person who, under an' of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of se<ual assault b' inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or an' instrument or obGect, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Aside from pro$ing the fact that Rape was committed, the prosecution also established that petitioner is the biological father of --- and that the latter was less than twel$e (12* 'ears old at the time of the commission of the crimes. /t is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the se<ual abuse, AAA was ele$en (11* 'ears old. 3his calls for the application of R.A. Fo. L 10 or 03he &pecial %rotection of Children Against Child Abuse, 7<ploitation and Discrimination Act,1 which defines se<ual abuse of children. %aragraph (b* punishes se<ual intercourse or lasci$ious conduct not onl' with a child e<ploited in prostitution, but also with a child subGected to other se<ual abuses. /t co$ers not onl' a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one :: through coercion, intimidation or influence :: engages in se<ual intercourse or lasci$ious conduct with a child. +owe$er, pursuant to the foregoing pro$ision, before an accused can be con$icted of child abuse through lasci$ious conduct committed against a minor below 12 'ears of age, the re;uisites for acts of lasci$iousness under Article 99 of the R%C must be met in addition to the re;uisites for se<ual abuse under &ection ) of R.A. Fo. L 10. 3he crime of Acts of ,asci$iousness, as defined in Article 99 of the R%C, has the following elements! (1* 3hat the offender commits an' act of lasci$iousness or lewdness! (2* 3hat it is done under an' of the following circumstances! a. -' using force or intimidation8 or b. .hen the offended part' is depri$ed of reason or otherwise unconscious8 or c. .hen the offended part' is under 12 'ears of age8 and (9* 3hat the offended

part' is another person of either se<. /n addition, the following elements of se<ual abuse under &ection ), Article /// of R.A. Fo. L 10 must be pro$en! (1* 3he accused commits the act of se<ual intercourse or lasci$iousconduct8 (2* 3he said act is performed with a child e<ploited in prostitution or subGected to other se<ual abuse8 and (9* 3he child, whether male or female, is below 1? 'ears of age. %etitioners act of touching AAAs $agina and pla'ing with it ob$iousl' amounted to lasci$ious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twel$e 'ears old and through intimidation, it is be'ond ca$il that petitioner is guilt' under the aforesaid laws.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CHRISTOPHER DE JES*S G.R. No. 181591, J!4u!"y 21, 2 1 RAPE

=AC3&! /nformation for rape was filed against appellant who was armed with a "itchen "nife when committing the act. Appellant had se<ual intercourse with the then 29:'ear old AAA, at the ground floor of her two:store' house. ,ater that morning, AAA disclosed to her sister that she was raped b' appellant, her neighbor and classmate during her elementar' schooling. AAA and her sister immediatel' reported the incident to the baranga' captain.AAA e<ecuted a sworn statement before the local police gi$ing details of how she was raped b' the then li;uor:smelling appellant including his po"ing of a "nife at her and threatening to "ill her and her children if she shouted. AAA was medicall' e<amined b' Dr. 4anuel C. A$es, medico:legal officer who found h'menal remnane at both lateral and superior border abrasion and laceration deep fresh at 9, 10 ocloc" of the h'men. Appellant denied the charges and interposed the 0sweetheart1 defense. Appellant surmised that AAA filed the rape complaint against him as he did not accede to her desire to elope with him. 3he R3C con$icted appellant which was confirmed b' the CA.

/&&K7! Did the prosecution pro$e the guilt of the accused be'ond reasonable doubt5

RK,/F@! 67&. 3he accuseds use of a fan "nife po"ed at the complainant before and during the se<ual abuse constitutes sufficient force as contemplated under Article 99). 3he accused e$en went be'ond emplo'ing force, he li"ewise intimidated the complainant b' threatening to "ill her and her children should she shout or ma"e an' noise. /t is a time:honored doctrine that the trial courts assessment of the credibilit' of a witness is entitled to great weight on appeal. 3he reason therefore is that the trial Gudge enGo's the peculiar ad$antage of obser$ing first:hand the deportment of the witnesses while testif'ing and is, therefore, in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof. Fo woman would concoct a stor' of defloration, allow an e<amination of her pri$ate parts, and thereafter per$ert herself b' being subGected to a public trial, especiall' in the present case where AAA had minor children to protect, if she was not moti$ated solel' b' the desire to ha$e the culprit apprehended and punished. PEOPLE .(. ,ICHAEL HIPONA G.R. No. 1857 9, F&1"u!"y 18, 2 1 Robbery with Homicide

Appellant was con$icted of Rape with +omicide (and Robber'* for ha$ing carnal "nowledge and the death of, at the same time ta"ing mone' and a nec"lace from the $ictim who happens to be +iponas aunt, being the sister of his mother, although no sufficient e$idence was presented b' the prosecution e<cept for the fact that he had openl' apologiBed in front of the media and his relati$es that he acted as a loo":out and under pressure of his peers. +e assails his con$iction for the failure to pro$e his guilt be'ond reasonable doubt and that he should onl' be liable for robber' with homicide because there was no proof that his semen was found in the $ictims genital organ. +e has also failed to e<plain wh' he was in possession of the $ictims stolen nec"lace.

/ssue! &hould the accused be sentenced to rape with homicide (and robber'* or onl' robber' with homicide5

Ruling! +e should be con$icted of Robber' with +omicide, rape is onl' an aggra$ating circumstance. =rom the e$idence for the prosecution, robber' was the main intent of appellant, and the $ictims death resulted b' reason of or on the occasion thereof.

3he confluence of the following established facts and circumstances sustains the appellate courts affirmance of appellants con$iction! First" appellant was fre;uentl' $isiting the $ictim prior to her death, hence, his familiarit' with the la'out of the house8 second" appellant admitted to his relati$es and the media that he was present during commission of the crime, albeit onl' as a loo":out8 third, appellant was in possession of $ictims nec"lace at the time he was arrested8 and fourth" appellant e<traGudiciall' confessed to the radio reporter that he committed the crime due to his peers and because of po$ert'.

=ollowing Article 2IH(1* and Article 2(1*1of the Re$ised %enal Code, rape should ha$e been appreciated as an aggra$ating circumstance instead. =or circumstantial e$idence to suffice to con$ict an accused, the following re;uisites must concur! (1* there is more than one circumstance8 (2* the facts from which the inference. AR,ANDO VIDAR @ AR#$ByA, NOR<ERTO <*TALON,CDE SONN= ,AR<ELLA @ AS-#B&A F JOHN DOES F PETER DOES .(. PEOPLE G.R. No. 177301, F&1"u!"y 1, 2 1 Robbery with Homicide

%etitioners were con$icted of Robber' with +omicide when the' ha$e entered the house of the $ictim, &gt. >ulio Dioneda of the %hilippine Arm', who at the time was still ta"ing his bath, and too" se$eral $aluables from the house of the $ictim, after which the' had shot the $ictim ta"ing ad$antage of their superior number and strength.

3he witnesses, the wife and sister of the $ictim, both positi$el' identified the petitioners to be the perpetrators and that the' onl' dela'ed filing of the criminal case against the petitioners for fear of retaliation since the' are aware of the petitioners in$ol$ement in the F%A.

%etitioners assails the con$iction maintaining that the dela' in filing the case casted serious doubt on the intention and moti$e of the complainant and that the case should ha$e been rebellion and the crime charged was onl' in furtherance of such rebellion. 3he' ha$e also allege the insufficienc' of e$idence which the' ha$e said could ha$e not pro$en their guilt be'ond reasonable doubt.

/ssue! Does dela' in filing of a criminal case diminish the credibilit' of the witness5 &hould the crime committed be absorbed in the crime of rebellion5

Ruling! 3he dela' did not greatl' wea"en the credibilit' of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. /n the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we belie$e that the dela' in reporting to the police authorities the attendant facts of the crime for which the petitioners ha$e been charged is consistent with normal human beha$ior considering that after a tragic incident, the last thing that the berea$ed would want is to pro$o"e further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act. Although there is a natural tendenc' to see" the ends of Gustice for the treacherous "illing of a dearl' departed, personal safet' ta"es priorit' as dictated b' our culture. 4oreo$er, considering pri$ate complainants honest belief that petitioners are "nown to be members of the F%A, the fear of reprisal from them was e$er present which caused her momentar' silence. After all, dela' in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual e$ent in rural areas is well "nown. 3he fact of dela' attributed to the prosecution witnesses cannot be ta"en against them. .hat is important is that their testimonies regarding the incident bear the earmar"s of truth and dependabilit'.

%etitioners were steadfast in their position that the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion, ob$iousl' to escape criminal liabilit' for the present charge. 3his is Gudicial admission that the' indeed committed the crime. A Gudicial admission conclusi$el' binds the part' ma"ing it. +e cannot thereafter ta"e a position contradictor' to or inconsistent with his pleading. Acts or facts admitted do not re;uire proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mista"e or that no such admission was made. .hen a part' adopts a certain theor' in the court below, he is not allowed to change his theor' on appeal, for to allow him to do so would not onl' be unfair to the other part' but would also be offensi$e to the basic rules of fair pla', Gustice and due process.

3he testimonies of the prosecution witnesses thus established be'ond reasonable doubt the elements of robber' with homicide, namel'! 1* the ta"ing of personal propert' was committed with $iolence or intimidation against persons8 2* the propert' ta"en belongs to another8 9* the ta"ing was done with ani'o lucrandi8 and H* b' reason of the robber' or on the occasion thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.

PEOPLE .(. JONJIE ESO=, ROLANDO CIANO F ROGER <OLALACAO G.R. No. 1858+9, A-"#l 7, 2 1 Robbery with Homicide

Respondent:appellants were charged of Robber' with +omicide for snatching the cellphone and stabbing the chest of $ictim ,orenBo Coro, while all of them were on board a passenger Geepne' that plied 3aft A$enue in the e$ening of >une 1?, 2001. Appellants were con$icted, howe$er, the' assail the decision based on failure of the prosecution to pro$e that the' ha$e ta"en the cellular phone since onl' the testimon' of witness Andrea %abalan was presented. %abalan alleged that when appellants brandished their balisongs, she found the $ictim was stabbed when she told him that the' should alight the $ehicle, he then declared that his cellphone was snatched and as"ed which direction the perpetrators went. 3hereafter, %abalan told him that the' should Gust go to a hospital so that he ma' be treated.

/ssue! .as the testimon' of the witness as to the declaration of the $ictim sufficient to con$ict the accused5 Ruling! 67&Q 3hough %abalans testimon' as to the $ictims utterance that his cellular phone was ta"en is onl' hearsa', the testimon' is considered an e<ception to the hearsa' rule, the $ictims spontaneous utterance being part of res gestae. /n the instant case, all the elements of res gestae are sufficientl' established insofar as the spontaneous utterance is concerned! (1* the principal act (res gestae* R the robber' and stabbing of the $ictim R is a startling occurrence8 (2* the statements were made before the declarant had time to contri$e or de$ise, that is, within minutes after the $ictim was stabbed and his cellular phone was snatched8 and (9* the statement concerns the occurrence in ;uestion and its immediatel' attending circumstances R his cellular phone was stolen during the startling occurrence.

PEOPLE .(. E,ELDO O<INA, A,ADO RA,IRE> F CARLITO <ALAG<IS G.R. No. 1805+ , A-"#l 1+, 2 1 Robbery with Rape

Accused:appellant Obina was con$icted of Robber' with Rape while RamireB and -alagbis were charged with Robber'. Obina and -alagbis barged in the door of $ictims house b' destro'ing it and demanded for mone'. 3he $ictim ga$e them %hp?00.00, thereafter, the husband was ordered to "neel Obina while he molested the wife. RamireB then shouted from outside that the' will onl' ta"e care of the wife after the' ha$e "illed the husband. .hen the husband had an opportunit' to flee, he left the house and sought for help lea$ing behind his wife and Obina, while RamireB and -alagbis ran after him. 3hereafter, Obina had carnal "nowledge with the wife against her will.

/ssue! Appellants assail their con$iction and submits errors on the imposition of penalt' and award for moral damages to the rape $ictim.

Ruling! As to the penalt' imposed, the R3C correctl' sentenced appellant Obina to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 2IH of the Re$ised %enal Code. 3he CA, li"ewise, committed no error in affirming the penalt' imposed on appellant RamireB and accused -alagbis. As to the award of moral damages, the ci$il indemnit' and moral damages are separatel' granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Ci$il indemnit' is mandatoril' awarded to the rape $ictim on the finding that rape was committed. /t is in the nature of actual or compensator' damages. 4oral damages are automaticall' awarded to rape $ictims without need of pleading or proof8 it is assumed that a rape $ictim actuall' suffered moral inGuries, entitling her to this award. 3hat the $ictim suffered trauma, with mental, ph'sical, and ps'chological suffering, is too ob$ious to still re;uire recital at the trial b' the $ictim, since we assume and ac"nowledge such agon' as a gauge of her credibilit'.

You might also like